This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Ukraine Situation - Should We Be Worried?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 20 Jul 24 10.50pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Anyone who trusts Putin to keep his word is nuts. The only thing he respects is something that’s stronger and more determined than he is. Thinking he would simply have stopped east of the Dnipro, said thanks and let the rest of Ukraine govern itself is just unbelievable. Who knows how long he would have paused to build up his army and resources but if he can do it in wartime he could have managed it more easily when there was no resistance. Appeasement has never worked. Of course a deal will need to be done, which may well resemble the appearance of anything said to have been on the table 2 years ago, but really isn’t. Now he knows if he steps over the line what will happen. NATO has been expanded because of him. The danger of course is not Putin. It’s Trump. Will Trump pull the rug from underneath NATO and hand the keys of Kyiv to Putin? Knowing Trump will only be there for 4 years and could be followed by a Democrat ready to restore support to NATO, Putin might feel compelled to land grab quickly. It could all get very nasty. Not on our doorsteps, yet. Unless it gets terminally nasty. I don’t look at X much these days. Not since Musk got involved. But I followed the recent link and was directed to this. Which seems a lot more interesting:-
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Stirlingsays 21 Jul 24 6.14am |
 |
|---|---|
|
What you see here is a complete failure to deal with reality. It's similar to their posts on this topic all the way through the thread. If you go back and read, it shows exactly why the opportunities to end this war failed and why the situation now is far worse and with hundreds of thousands of dead in the ground....lots of them the young men of Ukraine needed to rebuild the country now gone. 15 million Ukrainians are said to have left Ukraine for other countries. It's unlikely the lion's share will ever come back. You will notice that none of the points deal with the factual reality and that's because essentially they don't know what they are talking about. It's just surface level waffle. It's very Boris Johnson. Let's deal with this word, 'appeasement'. It's become a word justified for continuing a war, we could use before any negotiation that isn't total victory. It's ridiculous. Did we 'appease' the IRA? Show that to anyone who says 'appeasement' but who isn't willing to fight in a trench themselves. All of a sudden people quickly find other ways of describing the situation and that's because it's an opinion. In the real world we have to deal in facts and what is possible. People who bet the farm because of 'dislikes' should not be in power. No, you won't find this word used because reality overcomes the pointlessness of using words like 'appeasement'. It's the lack of reality that annoys me. Ok, let's look back at what it would take Ukraine to beat Russia. It doesn't have the population numbers...I was saying this at the start. If you have a situation where both countries are willing to go to the wire Ukraine loses everytime....which is precisely what is happening. If you want to beat Russia you have to send Nato troops and escalate to WW3. It's possible Russia can be beaten in Ukraine but its more likely we all die. It all comes down to the blood cost states are willing to give. It really isn't that complicated. The only way you could have convinced Russia to stop would have been by destroying its economy and that was always unrealistic given how important its massive resources are. They just redirected, meaning we get much more expensive energy long term. The definition of stupid if you ask me. The US state department had no business in Ukraine trying to turn that country from a neutral to anti Russian. The US wouldn't have accepted the same thing being done to them as history shows. Putin warned about this back in 2008 but was ignored....that by the way is the answer to this claim that Putin's here for continual war. The Biden family and other movers at that time need investigation as to what went on. The massive cost to the west falls into the hundreds of billions because of these elites.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 24 8.59am |
|
|---|---|
|
Let’s indeed deal with the word “appeasement “ before it gets even more misrepresented here. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as:- “ the act of giving the opposing side in an argument or war an advantage that they have demanded, in order to prevent further disagreement “. Dictionary.com is even clearer:- “ the policy of acceding to the demands of a potentially hostile nation in the hope of maintaining peace” So not negotiations during or after a war, or after a tactical withdrawal. It’s handing something to an opponent that they don’t deserve so as to avoid a fight. Something generally done before shots are fired, in response to threats. Cambridge uses this as an example:- “A policy of appeasement is counterproductive with dictators.” Think about that. They aren’t my words. No one wants to beat Russia. That’s a very stupid idea. They want to deter and contain Russian expansionism. No one is the west that I am aware of has any interest in occupying an inch of Russia. Appeasing Putin, which is exactly what is being suggested should have happened, would ultimately resulted in a very bad situation being even worse. Of course Ukraine could not have managed alone. Of course the cost has been very high. Pointing these things out doesn’t change the facts. Not liking the cost of having to restrain Putin is Trumplike thinking. It is short term expediency. Passing the bill onto those who follow, so you can stay in power today. It’s not leadership. It’s selfishness. It demonstrates the paucity of populism.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 21 Jul 24 10.25am |
|
|---|---|
|
Doesn't answer any of the points and waffles on. Doesn't know what's happening on the battlefield has no definable way to achieve what he says, just continual ideology because 'Putin = bad' with no evidence for any of his fear mongering. The Hol's Biden. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Jul 2024 10.53am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
ASCPFC  Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 21 Jul 24 12.40pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Let’s indeed deal with the word “appeasement “ before it gets even more misrepresented here. The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as:- “ the act of giving the opposing side in an argument or war an advantage that they have demanded, in order to prevent further disagreement “. Dictionary.com is even clearer:- “ the policy of acceding to the demands of a potentially hostile nation in the hope of maintaining peace” So not negotiations during or after a war, or after a tactical withdrawal. It’s handing something to an opponent that they don’t deserve so as to avoid a fight. Something generally done before shots are fired, in response to threats. Cambridge uses this as an example:- “A policy of appeasement is counterproductive with dictators.” Think about that. They aren’t my words. No one wants to beat Russia. That’s a very stupid idea. They want to deter and contain Russian expansionism. No one is the west that I am aware of has any interest in occupying an inch of Russia. Appeasing Putin, which is exactly what is being suggested should have happened, would ultimately resulted in a very bad situation being even worse. Of course Ukraine could not have managed alone. Of course the cost has been very high. Pointing these things out doesn’t change the facts. Not liking the cost of having to restrain Putin is Trumplike thinking. It is short term expediency. Passing the bill onto those who follow, so you can stay in power today. It’s not leadership. It’s selfishness. It demonstrates the paucity of populism. There was always going to be an element of compromise unless Ukraine outright defeats Russia. That wouldn't be appeasement - it would be a way to end the war. Hopefully, largely accepted by both sides. What you're not taking into account is there are genuinely regions of Ukraine that would be majority Russian. And then there's the history of Sevastopol and the Crimea. I don't know how people in the Crimea tend to identify themselves but I get the feeling there's a large Russian population.
Red and Blue Army! |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 24 2.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by ASCPFC
There was always going to be an element of compromise unless Ukraine outright defeats Russia. That wouldn't be appeasement - it would be a way to end the war. Hopefully, largely accepted by both sides. What you're not taking into account is there are genuinely regions of Ukraine that would be majority Russian. And then there's the history of Sevastopol and the Crimea. I don't know how people in the Crimea tend to identify themselves but I get the feeling there's a large Russian population. No one is suggesting otherwise. It’s a negotiation. Appeasement involves just giving in to the threats. It’s being argued here as a tactic that would have avoided all the pain and suffering of the last 2 years, when the probability is that it would have resulted in the whole of Ukraine being occupied. Which Ukraine fiercely wanted to resist. That would then have threatened similar expansion into other countries and put the Russians on the border of Western Europe. Now we can negotiate, create agreed buffer zones with inspection obligations and keep the bear at arms length. It’s not ideal. It could fail. But it’s a better outcome than appeasement. With someone like Putin there cannot be certainty. The risk to us now being the highest since the Cuban crisis. None of that is in doubt. Nor though, it seems to me, is that trying to appease a dictator is counter productive. As to evidence of Putin’s unreliability you only have to look at his record. He sees compromise as weakness and weakness as opportunity to be exploited.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 21 Jul 24 2.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Putin's military in 2022 was significantly smaller than in 2024. So how does that square with weakening Russia? We have been hearing this for years now, but Russia's economy grew last year. In truth this war has hurt Europe's economy just as much as their's....especially Germany's....Yet this idea that this changes minds is devoid of history. Does it look like Germany's mind has changed? Putin said after the 2022 peace terms were rejected that Ukraine wouldn't get better terms than that and unlike our intelligence and security talking heads turning up on our tv screens he's been accurate. I truly have no idea how Ukraine get those terms again. Not without Nato paying a considerable blood price for Ukraine....yeah, good luck convincing people of that. People deserve a huge amount of criticism for not backing that peace negotiation. All this waffle about not trusting Putin?....Why do you have to trust Putin? It's all in the terms of the negotiation....Haven't people heard of demilitarized zones? I tire of this lackluster low set analysis. Once again, how do you turn the Russian military out of east and south Ukraine....many of whom were not exactly happy with Kyiv after 2014 without Nato going to war with its own troops? You can't. All that is being done is the slow destruction of Ukraine. Why should Russia stop now that Nato have said that Ukraine will join? This just tells Russia that it shouldn't stop until Ukraine is no longer capable of being used against it. To be honest unless Trump can change the game I don't see how Ukraine survives as anything other than cost along Europe's neck.....a cost incurred by the US state department's cold war obsession. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Jul 2024 3.00pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Jul 24 10.20pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Putin's military in 2022 was significantly smaller than in 2024! So what does that prove? If there had been a settlement in 2022 it could well have been even bigger now, without suffering the losses imposed on it. We know it’s been costly. That’s neither doubted nor the right question. The right question is whether the ultimate cost would have been higher, or lower. Not the relatively short term one. Were DMZs on offer in 2022 or was Putin simply demanding control of the land east of the Dnipro? Maybe it was refused without an agreement for DMZs? From all I have read Putin was only prepared to deal on his terms. No one could accept that with Putin. To agree would have been 100% appeasement. So who really was responsible for those talks failing? It was just window dressing. Maybe now it will be different. Maybe not. A lot depends on what happens in the USA in November.
For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 Jul 24 11.17am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Putin's military in 2022 was significantly smaller than in 2024! So what does that prove? If there had been a settlement in 2022 it could well have been even bigger now, without suffering the losses imposed on it. We know it’s been costly. That’s neither doubted nor the right question. The right question is whether the ultimate cost would have been higher, or lower. Not the relatively short term one. Were DMZs on offer in 2022 or was Putin simply demanding control of the land east of the Dnipro? Maybe it was refused without an agreement for DMZs? From all I have read Putin was only prepared to deal on his terms. No one could accept that with Putin. To agree would have been 100% appeasement. So who really was responsible for those talks failing? It was just window dressing. Maybe now it will be different. Maybe not. A lot depends on what happens in the USA in November. It proves that if his intention was to invade multiple countries then he would have had to have a much larger force to succeed. Ukraine's army was already the largest in Europe at that time and had been fortifying with mainly US input since 2014. So the idea that Putin had other ambitions over Ukraine has zero evidence for it. He is essentially saying what he warned about back in 2008....Oliver Stone made a film about it. People just decide to memory hole it. Sure, both sides can build up after a settlement....but apparently you only see losses on one side? Once again, the question has to be put to you, who are these non Ukrainian troops that you think should be paying the blood price here? Because I have to be frank....the will to fight for the donbas isn't there lad. Maybe some Poles and heritage slavs, but most of them have gone there and many have died already. The deal out on offer is available if you want to look for it. Putin has stated those terms won't be available again....I guess with a Trump presidency we will see, but I can't see Ukraine getting any of the south and east back....the recent northern front, perhaps. Negotiations I imagine would be protracted though. Any peace with Russia should first come via a referendum in Ukraine....the first piece of democracy they would have been allowed...but Blinken will have to be gone first. The Russians are currently doing very well on the battlefield and Ukraine's army is mostly mobilised and civilian. As usual the media isn't being honest about the situation and only releases bits and pieces. No one seems to understand what it would take to significantly push back the Russians at this point. They are fully committed with a war economy and very little trust is going about. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jul 2024 11.18am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 22 Jul 24 11.53am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
It proves that if his intention was to invade multiple countries then he would have had to have a much larger force to succeed. Ukraine's army was already the largest in Europe at that time and had been fortifying with mainly US input since 2014. So the idea that Putin had other ambitions over Ukraine has zero evidence for it. He is essentially saying what he warned about back in 2008....Oliver Stone made a film about it. People just decide to memory hole it. Sure, both sides can build up after a settlement....but apparently you only see losses on one side? Once again, the question has to be put to you, who are these non Ukrainian troops that you think should be paying the blood price here? Because I have to be frank....the will to fight for the donbas isn't there lad. Maybe some Poles and heritage slavs, but most of them have gone there and many have died already. The deal out on offer is available if you want to look for it. Putin has stated those terms won't be available again....I guess with a Trump presidency we will see, but I can't see Ukraine getting any of the south and east back....the recent northern front, perhaps. Negotiations I imagine would be protracted though. Any peace with Russia should first come via a referendum in Ukraine....the first piece of democracy they would have been allowed...but Blinken will have to be gone first. The Russians are currently doing very well on the battlefield and Ukraine's army is mostly mobilised and civilian. As usual the media isn't being honest about the situation and only releases bits and pieces. No one seems to understand what it would take to significantly push back the Russians at this point. They are fully committed with a war economy and very little trust is going about. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jul 2024 11.18am) And many over here or elsewhere in Europe rather than fighting for their own country.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 Jul 24 12.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
And many over here or elsewhere in Europe rather than fighting for their own country. True, though it should be remembered that Ukraine has always had a considerable amount of Russian influence. Some of those over here would be more more Putin than Zelensky. You have to believe in what you are fighting for....mobilised armies contain gang pressing. On the front if you don't fight and run off you have the risk of being shot. If you don't agree with a particular war it makes sense to avoid it. Nationalism in the west, even the concept of the nation state, has been deliberately attacked for decades. I have to say, it's almost amusing to now see western leaders in military uniform. What can they say to youth to sign up? What are they fighting for exactly? DEI? Yeah, that's not going to go well. Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Jul 2024 12.47pm)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| eaglesdare 24 Jul 24 12.08pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Zelenski finally making noises about negotiations with russia and peace knowing full well the gravy train will end soon when trump gets into the white house.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.